Why do people say if you go low carb to lose weight, you must eat that way forever?
Options
Replies
-
ummijaaz560 wrote: »ummijaaz560 wrote: »Thanks all who have added to the discussion.
Does anyone know how carbs affect stomach bloat? Or is there no connection?
Also why do I get really hungry after eating pasta, like spaghetti with meatballs, but if I eat just meatballs I'm fine?
The only connection would be if you are issues with wheat. Carbs don't cause bloat. The latter is more about personal satiety. Are they equal size meatballs? If you eat just meatballs, is there a side?
If I eat the meatballs with marinara sauce and vegatables I'm satisfied. When I eat the spaghetti and meatballs I'm hungry an hour later? Oh and I weigh my meatballs to get them even, lol!
This always happens with pasta and I cant understand why.
So Ive stopped having pasta for now.
Have you tried whole grain pasta? Way more filling, and honestly I find regular pasta bland now.
In my case, it never mattered what kind of pasta it was. My husband likes to make fresh pasta so sometimes it was with white flour, sometimes whole wheat, sometimes random super expensive specialty flours, and once the bulk of it was actually butternut squash (actually, the squash pasta was a bit more filling now that I think about it).
Rice treats me the same way. Doesn't matter what it is served with, it promotes hunger.
It wouldn't surprise me if some day science showed gut flora populations had a lot to do with which types of food promote satiety in different individuals, but I don't think that research has been done yet so for now it's just a part hypothesis.4 -
No joke, last week I went very low carb about 30ish a day and dropped 4lbs that week. Well, I'm back on my regular diet and now have that weight back lol...I thought maybe I lost fat, made me happy.
So...you lost some water. If you stayed on a low carb diet for, say, six months, and lost, say 30Lbs would some of that be fat?2 -
ummijaaz560 wrote: »ummijaaz560 wrote: »Thanks all who have added to the discussion.
Does anyone know how carbs affect stomach bloat? Or is there no connection?
Also why do I get really hungry after eating pasta, like spaghetti with meatballs, but if I eat just meatballs I'm fine?
The only connection would be if you are issues with wheat. Carbs don't cause bloat. The latter is more about personal satiety. Are they equal size meatballs? If you eat just meatballs, is there a side?
If I eat the meatballs with marinara sauce and vegatables I'm satisfied. When I eat the spaghetti and meatballs I'm hungry an hour later? Oh and I weigh my meatballs to get them even, lol!
This always happens with pasta and I cant understand why.
So Ive stopped having pasta for now.
Have you tried whole grain pasta? Way more filling, and honestly I find regular pasta bland now.
In my case, it never mattered what kind of pasta it was. My husband likes to make fresh pasta so sometimes it was with white flour, sometimes whole wheat, sometimes random super expensive specialty flours, and once the bulk of it was actually butternut squash (actually, the squash pasta was a bit more filling now that I think about it).
Rice treats me the same way. Doesn't matter what it is served with, it promotes hunger.
It wouldn't surprise me if some day science showed gut flora populations had a lot to do with which types of food promote satiety in different individuals, but I don't think that research has been done yet so for now it's just a part hypothesis.
But gut flora follows what you eat -- if you change your diet the gut flora will change -- so wouldn't seem a likely explanation.
I always wonder HOW people who claim they were unsatisfied on rice/pasta were eating those foods. Were they in a complete meal with protein and a good complement of vegetables? Did they really try eating a normal serving (not the 2-3 they claim were necessary) and filling up with other components? Was the overall diet unbalanced and high refined carb or instead was it full of fiber and high nutrient foods and protein?
But in any case it's certainly true that we have natural differences as to what is satiating which likely would make no difference at all if food weren't around and so easily available (I don't believe there are people in blue zones who have adequate calories but perceive themselves as starving due to carb percentage), but do matter in our environment because so much of hunger is mental. Some apparently find fat filling, whereas I've experimented and it does nothing for me and a high fat breakfast is one of the few things that makes me hungry before lunch (a refined carb only breakfast would too). So that some could eat a perfectly healthful and balanced diet with plenty of vegetables and protein and still find a diet of 70% fat and 10% carbs more filling than one that was 40-30-30 or 50-30-20 seems entirely likely to me.
To get back to the thread topic, this would be a reason NOT to change back, I suppose, if you wanted to keep doing what worked. If you (hypothetical you) felt like pasta wasn't satiating (and ate it as a dinner with just cheese or some such) and cut it out because low carb and added it back in (not counting calories) at maintenance, it still would not be satiating and would be a food to overeat. If one did count calories or didn't but did a lower cal version of the maintenance diet where one experimented and found that a smaller serving of pasta with protein and vegetables was more filling for fewer calories (again, hypothetically) than the pasta with cheese, then one might be able to more easily maintain that. I think that's the kind of thing people are getting at.
As noted above, I don't actually think there's any broad rule about having to stay low carb, though -- depends on WHY the person likes low carbing and what else they did and what their maintenance plan is.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.0 -
ummijaaz560 wrote: »ummijaaz560 wrote: »Thanks all who have added to the discussion.
Does anyone know how carbs affect stomach bloat? Or is there no connection?
Also why do I get really hungry after eating pasta, like spaghetti with meatballs, but if I eat just meatballs I'm fine?
The only connection would be if you are issues with wheat. Carbs don't cause bloat. The latter is more about personal satiety. Are they equal size meatballs? If you eat just meatballs, is there a side?
If I eat the meatballs with marinara sauce and vegatables I'm satisfied. When I eat the spaghetti and meatballs I'm hungry an hour later? Oh and I weigh my meatballs to get them even, lol!
This always happens with pasta and I cant understand why.
So Ive stopped having pasta for now.
I'm the same way. If I eat three meatballs and a big salad, I'm full the rest of the evening. If I eat three equal size meatballs, a smaller salad, and a serving or two of pasta, hangry two hours later. I've always had issues with reactive hypoglycemia, and hanger is a symptom of that (if I ignore the hunger and irritability long enough I descend into shakes, cold sweats, dizziness, and eventually syncope). I have a strong family history of type two diabetes and other health conditions related to insulin resistance. I suspect the reason that I feel hungrier when eating high carb foods is that my body simply doesn't process them normally. Don't know if that is the case with you, but a LOT of people are IR and have no earthly clue that they are. Could be a factor in your case.
Eta - I tried eating whole wheat pasta, the pasta with added protein from flax, blah blah blah... None of it mattered.
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ummijaaz560 wrote: »ummijaaz560 wrote: »Thanks all who have added to the discussion.
Does anyone know how carbs affect stomach bloat? Or is there no connection?
Also why do I get really hungry after eating pasta, like spaghetti with meatballs, but if I eat just meatballs I'm fine?
The only connection would be if you are issues with wheat. Carbs don't cause bloat. The latter is more about personal satiety. Are they equal size meatballs? If you eat just meatballs, is there a side?
If I eat the meatballs with marinara sauce and vegatables I'm satisfied. When I eat the spaghetti and meatballs I'm hungry an hour later? Oh and I weigh my meatballs to get them even, lol!
This always happens with pasta and I cant understand why.
So Ive stopped having pasta for now.
Have you tried whole grain pasta? Way more filling, and honestly I find regular pasta bland now.
In my case, it never mattered what kind of pasta it was. My husband likes to make fresh pasta so sometimes it was with white flour, sometimes whole wheat, sometimes random super expensive specialty flours, and once the bulk of it was actually butternut squash (actually, the squash pasta was a bit more filling now that I think about it).
Rice treats me the same way. Doesn't matter what it is served with, it promotes hunger.
It wouldn't surprise me if some day science showed gut flora populations had a lot to do with which types of food promote satiety in different individuals, but I don't think that research has been done yet so for now it's just a part hypothesis.
But gut flora follows what you eat -- if you change your diet the gut flora will change -- so wouldn't seem a likely explanation.
I always wonder HOW people who claim they were unsatisfied on rice/pasta were eating those foods. Were they in a complete meal with protein and a good complement of vegetables? Did they really try eating a normal serving (not the 2-3 they claim were necessary) and filling up with other components? Was the overall diet unbalanced and high refined carb or instead was it full of fiber and high nutrient foods and protein?
But in any case it's certainly true that we have natural differences as to what is satiating which likely would make no difference at all if food weren't around and so easily available (I don't believe there are people in blue zones who have adequate calories but perceive themselves as starving due to carb percentage), but do matter in our environment because so much of hunger is mental. Some apparently find fat filling, whereas I've experimented and it does nothing for me and a high fat breakfast is one of the few things that makes me hungry before lunch (a refined carb only breakfast would too). So that some could eat a perfectly healthful and balanced diet with plenty of vegetables and protein and still find a diet of 70% fat and 10% carbs more filling than one that was 40-30-30 or 50-30-20 seems entirely likely to me.
To get back to the thread topic, this would be a reason NOT to change back, I suppose, if you wanted to keep doing what worked. If you (hypothetical you) felt like pasta wasn't satiating (and ate it as a dinner with just cheese or some such) and cut it out because low carb and added it back in (not counting calories) at maintenance, it still would not be satiating and would be a food to overeat. If one did count calories or didn't but did a lower cal version of the maintenance diet where one experimented and found that a smaller serving of pasta with protein and vegetables was more filling for fewer calories (again, hypothetically) than the pasta with cheese, then one might be able to more easily maintain that. I think that's the kind of thing people are getting at.
As noted above, I don't actually think there's any broad rule about having to stay low carb, though -- depends on WHY the person likes low carbing and what else they did and what their maintenance plan is.
I've never really thought about that point before, but it's a very good one. I personally have always found that pasta dishes are extremely satisfying to me, but that's probably because I like chicken or beef with them, and usually bulk the dish up with lots of vegetables. The sauce is usually either a marinara or pesto, depending on what protein I choose. Usually I have a fat, like cheese or domething, too. I can still make completely vegetarian, though, and find it satisfying. I suspect if all I was eating was a bunch of noodles with some sauce on them, then, no, that wouldn't be satisfying for long.
I don't think you necessarily need to be low carb for life, although I do embrace the idea that weight loss mode should closely mimic how maintenance will be. Otherwise, switching to completely different habits once you reach maintenence could take quite a bit of adjustment.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.
Some people do want to go back to the way they have always eaten in terms of types of food, not in terms of calories. It can be achieved either by reducing portions or frequency. Those who decide to change some or much of their familiar diet for life by severely reducing or eliminating are by no means better or worse than those who prefer to keep to the familiar if both are equally aware of what it takes to maintain and what strategies work for them.
Some people decide they want to eliminate or severely limit some foods for life, and that's great if that's what they wish to do and feel is sustainable. This is not the issue here. This is not a discussion about whether or not people choose to eliminate foods or change the types of foods they eat. Of course any sustainable strategy will be beneficial during maintenance. What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods, which people on very low carb diets usually need to do.
Come maintenance, they will not magically learn how to navigate situations involving these foods just because they are at their goal weight. The exact issue that led them to low carb would rear its ugly head again. The disadvantage for these people is that if they wish to maintain they are hit with a big learning curve during a critical phase of maintenance, something people who eat a more flexible diet during weight loss have already tackled and developed working strategies for, making for a smoother and easier transition to maintenance.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
In many cases people say they are doing low carb because they don't want to count calories or because they find it difficult to moderate "carbs" (often not really carbs but carbs+fat, but whatever), and stress how they can eat whatever they want and lose using low carb.
I'm sure you know this.3 -
dragon_girl26 wrote: »I don't think you necessarily need to be low carb for life, although I do embrace the idea that weight loss mode should closely mimic how maintenance will be. Otherwise, switching to completely different habits once you reach maintenence could take quite a bit of adjustment.
I agree.
I don't at all think someone has to do what they plan to do forever (I didn't plan to eat at a deficit forever, after all, and I modified my way of eating -- while staying generally the same -- throughout the time I was losing and since them, including adding in more carbs at various points (never low carb, though, as I understand it)).
I DO think it matters why they were low carb and what the plan is (and no, this is not unique to low carb and I don't think anyone claims otherwise). For example, as I said just above, if the deal was they think they lack control or carbs cause weight gain (so plan to yo yo?) or don't want to count/track/eat less than the amount they want (many like to go on about how they can eat unlimited bacon and cheese), then it's not going to work to just stop.
But, on the other hand, if they were tracking and cut mostly carbs because that was the easiest thing to cut (or mostly carbs and carb+fat "junk" foods, which is common) and then add back in some of those while continuing to count, sure, that's no different than what non low carbers on a counting/tracking-based plan do.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
That.
And your other post too. You're a mindreader.0 -
Are there any studies to support these statements about proceeding as you mean to go on? It sounds good in theory, but most of the research - that I'm aware of - seems to support surgery and PSMF diets as the most effective weight loss methods long term.
The slow, steady and sustainable advice is common but is it evidenced based? (That's a real question, btw.)0 -
ummijaaz560 wrote: »Thanks all who have added to the discussion.
Does anyone know how carbs affect stomach bloat? Or is there no connection?
Also why do I get really hungry after eating pasta, like spaghetti with meatballs, but if I eat just meatballs I'm fine?
If I eat a lot of pasta with a little meat, yes, I'm hungry again not long afterwards. Sorry I can't quantify the amounts here - I wasn't weighing then.
However, if I eat 4-5 ounces of pasta with 4 ounces of meat and 3 ounces of non-starchy veg (and butter) I've had a filling dinner.
The same thing with rice - I used to eat a lot more of it, and now just have 75-100 grams with the meat and non-starchy veg.
3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.
Some people do want to go back to the way they have always eaten in terms of types of food, not in terms of calories. It can be achieved either by reducing portions or frequency. Those who decide to change some or much of their familiar diet for life by severely reducing or eliminating are by no means better or worse than those who prefer to keep to the familiar if both are equally aware of what it takes to maintain and what strategies work for them.
Some people decide they want to eliminate or severely limit some foods for life, and that's great if that's what they wish to do and feel is sustainable. This is not the issue here. This is not a discussion about whether or not people choose to eliminate foods or change the types of foods they eat. Of course any sustainable strategy will be beneficial during maintenance. What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods, which people on very low carb diets usually need to do.
Come maintenance, they will not magically learn how to navigate situations involving these foods just because they are at their goal weight. The exact issue that led them to low carb would rear its ugly head again. The disadvantage for these people is that if they wish to maintain they are hit with a big learning curve during a critical phase of maintenance, something people who eat a more flexible diet during weight loss have already tackled and developed working strategies for, making for a smoother and easier transition to maintenance.
I understand what you are saying, but is there any actual evidence that this is true? Any studies that show that people who go from low carb back to a more flexible diet have a higher rate of failure at maintenance than those who utilize other methods to get into a calorie deficit?
I'm not clear on this sentence, particularly the bold: "What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods"
Cutting off, severely limiting, or manipulating foods to fit into a diet is pretty much the essential skills needed to be successful at maintenance - you either don't consume it, only have it occasionally, or make it fit by manipulating portion or recipe. I don't see how that isn't sustainable, especially since moderating foods that way is how many flexible dieters are able to be successful.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Are there any studies to support these statements about proceeding as you mean to go on? It sounds good in theory, but most of the research - that I'm aware of - seems to support surgery and PSMF diets as the most effective weight loss methods long term.
The slow, steady and sustainable advice is common but is it evidenced based? (That's a real question, btw.)
The issue with studies is that they are self selecting for people who want to lose weight, not for people who are already successfully doing it into maintenance. These kinds of studies attract people who either already have a low predicted rate of success seeking the "perfect diet" or magic pill or people who are just plain curious with a "why not" attitude. Some even do it for the compensation which could be in the thousands in some cases. I have actually received an ad for a study recruiting subjects a few days ago and it read more like a weight loss ad starting with something like "Are you an adult looking to lose weight with innovative technology?". Not the kind of advertising that would attract someone who has already found a good weight loss strategy and has a good maintenance plan in mind like is the case for many who focus on crafting their own individualized sustainable diet, but more for the "browser" or the "fad diet jumper" kinds.
WLS works because it mechanically limits the ability of a person to eat too much, and PSMF appears to work because it creates greater weight loss and there is more weight to regain to be considered not in maintenance by the end of the study. It has also been shown that people who lose more weight maintain more of the lost weight, well no *kitten*. If all you have to lose is 10 lbs and then you regain them a year later you are no longer in maintenance, but if you have lost 50 lbs and regained 10 of them a year later, you are still technically in maintenance.
2 -
I don't see why a person can't choose to cut out foods that are high in calories (and perhaps less nutrient dense, so it doesn't fit into their macros or micros), that they have trouble moderating when they are eating at a deficit. While it's cut out they are learning to say no to things and to find others foods they enjoy and find comfort in. Then when they are ready they can learn how to occasionally integrate foods back in with moderation. Maybe it won't work for everyone. But, it can work for some people. Different people respond better to different methods of achieving a calorie deficit. Different strokes for different folks. We are always changing, so no need to decide we can't ever change.1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.
Some people do want to go back to the way they have always eaten in terms of types of food, not in terms of calories. It can be achieved either by reducing portions or frequency. Those who decide to change some or much of their familiar diet for life by severely reducing or eliminating are by no means better or worse than those who prefer to keep to the familiar if both are equally aware of what it takes to maintain and what strategies work for them.
Some people decide they want to eliminate or severely limit some foods for life, and that's great if that's what they wish to do and feel is sustainable. This is not the issue here. This is not a discussion about whether or not people choose to eliminate foods or change the types of foods they eat. Of course any sustainable strategy will be beneficial during maintenance. What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods, which people on very low carb diets usually need to do.
Come maintenance, they will not magically learn how to navigate situations involving these foods just because they are at their goal weight. The exact issue that led them to low carb would rear its ugly head again. The disadvantage for these people is that if they wish to maintain they are hit with a big learning curve during a critical phase of maintenance, something people who eat a more flexible diet during weight loss have already tackled and developed working strategies for, making for a smoother and easier transition to maintenance.
I'm not clear on this sentence, particularly the bold: "What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods"
Cutting off, severely limiting, or manipulating foods to fit into a diet is pretty much the essential skills needed to be successful at maintenance - you either don't consume it, only have it occasionally, or make it fit by manipulating portion or recipe. I don't see how that isn't sustainable, especially since moderating foods that way is how many flexible dieters are able to be successful.
I'm not sure where the stream of communication is being bottlenecked, A big chunk is the keyword. Not wanting to eat a diet that is almost entirely different from what a person is used to forver is a valid concern for some. Deciding to severely limit doughnuts because I don't like them enough to be worth the calories or cutting out regular soda because I find diet soda to taste same or even better is different from someone having to severely limit more than half of their usual foods that they actually love and a good chunk of the foods commonly consumed socially. Using a little less oil in cooking or more vegetables for bulking is entirely different from someone using manipulations that make certain dishes barely recognizable as the original. Limiting my food choices for one meal in order to have a higher calorie meal of a food I love is different from limiting a hoard of choices for an extended time. My diet is nearly identical to the usual way I eat, albeit tweaked a bit, their diet is almost entirely different from the usual way they eat.
Feeling a drastic change in diet not to be sustainable is a valid concern for some, I'm not sure what you don't understand about that or why you are trying to take the thread places. The question is simple: why do people say you must eat that way forever? The question is very specific to those who do not want to eat low carb forever and thus do not want to limit their food the same way. The answer is simple too: it's not that you must, it's that it would make for an easier transition into maintenance because you will already have developed some of the needed skills. This applies to any diet, not just low carb and if you plan to maintain on a diet that is very different from the one you used to lose weight you will need to be ready for a good deal of new strategy developing, and yes, even things you may have avoided like the plague during dieting like calorie counting or portion control.
It seems the question of the thread is getting lost in translation somewhere. This is not a "boohoo people cut food on low carb so they won't maintain" strawman, it does not require the "other people cut stuff too" answer. This also isn't a thread criticizing people for choosing a certain way of eating or certain maintenance strategies because all strategies sustainable for an individual are valid. It's simply a thread about handling a style of eating during maintenance that is very different from the one used during weight loss, which can still be successful if done right.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.
Some people do want to go back to the way they have always eaten in terms of types of food, not in terms of calories. It can be achieved either by reducing portions or frequency. Those who decide to change some or much of their familiar diet for life by severely reducing or eliminating are by no means better or worse than those who prefer to keep to the familiar if both are equally aware of what it takes to maintain and what strategies work for them.
Some people decide they want to eliminate or severely limit some foods for life, and that's great if that's what they wish to do and feel is sustainable. This is not the issue here. This is not a discussion about whether or not people choose to eliminate foods or change the types of foods they eat. Of course any sustainable strategy will be beneficial during maintenance. What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods, which people on very low carb diets usually need to do.
Come maintenance, they will not magically learn how to navigate situations involving these foods just because they are at their goal weight. The exact issue that led them to low carb would rear its ugly head again. The disadvantage for these people is that if they wish to maintain they are hit with a big learning curve during a critical phase of maintenance, something people who eat a more flexible diet during weight loss have already tackled and developed working strategies for, making for a smoother and easier transition to maintenance.
I'm not clear on this sentence, particularly the bold: "What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods"
Cutting off, severely limiting, or manipulating foods to fit into a diet is pretty much the essential skills needed to be successful at maintenance - you either don't consume it, only have it occasionally, or make it fit by manipulating portion or recipe. I don't see how that isn't sustainable, especially since moderating foods that way is how many flexible dieters are able to be successful.
I'm not sure where the stream of communication is being bottlenecked, A big chunk is the keyword. Not wanting to eat a diet that is almost entirely different from what a person is used to forver is a valid concern for some. Deciding to severely limit doughnuts because I don't like them enough to be worth the calories or cutting out regular soda because I find diet soda to taste same or even better is different from someone having to severely limit more than half of their usual foods that they actually love and a good chunk of the foods commonly consumed socially. Using a little less oil in cooking or more vegetables for bulking is entirely different from someone using manipulations that make certain dishes barely recognizable as the original. Limiting my food choices for one meal in order to have a higher calorie meal of a food I love is different from limiting a hoard of choices for an extended time. My diet is nearly identical to the usual way I eat, albeit tweaked a bit, their diet is almost entirely different from the usual way they eat.
Feeling a drastic change in diet not to be sustainable is a valid concern for some, I'm not sure what you don't understand about that or why you are trying to take the thread places. The question is simple: why do people say you must eat that way forever? The question is very specific to those who do not want to eat low carb forever and thus do not want to limit their food the same way. The answer is simple too: it's not that you must, it's that it would make for an easier transition into maintenance because you will already have developed some of the needed skills. This applies to any diet, not just low carb and if you plan to maintain on a diet that is very different from the one you used to lose weight you will need to be ready for a good deal of new strategy developing, and yes, even things you may have avoided like the plague during dieting like calorie counting or portion control.
First, I do not agree that the question is specific to those who do not want to eat low carb forever and thus do not want to limit their food the same way. That question is asked, as well as the "why are you choosing to eat low carb," of most users who come to site asking for information about low carb diets.
I agree that a drastic change in diet can be a concern for some, no matter what way of eating they choose. Going from eating out all the time to focusing on home cooked meals can be a drastic change, and simply getting into a calorie deficit can be a drastic change because people realize that a lot of the foods they "love" don't realistically fit into their goals as often as they would like, or in a portion size that they would find to be "worth it." Many people end up going through an overhaul of their diet as a result of being on this site, and never quite end up going back to the way they "used to" eat, no matter which approach they choose.
I think everyone should use whatever strategy works for them while recognizing that someone else may prefer a different strategy. I'm not sure why someone who really wanted a food to be a part of their life would choose a diet which eliminates that in the first place, it seems like the majority of people on site who do eliminate foods eliminate ones they do not feel are helpful to their goals.
I would advise anyone undertaking a weight loss program to be ready to develop a lot of new strategies in order to be successful at both weight loss and maintenance. The part that I am disagreeing with is the notion that low carb dieters are facing increased obstacles due to the type of food served, or are some how less equipped with the skills needed to manage those situations or maintain successfully - they obviously had to moderate intake during weight loss and learned that skill which they can apply to any food, and if it's a food they know they can't moderate, why would they (or anyone for that matter) decide to eat it knowing they would be unhappy with the consequences, unless they were ok with the consequences?1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have yet to see a single low carb person who did not cut out very specific food types because of their carb content.
So they don't consume foods that don't fit their macros? That concept sounds familiar...
So when they're at goal they either have to be able to "Do this for the rest of their life" (name of the thread), or they need to be able to do the thing they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with.
Am I articulating myself that badly that you don't understand?
What is "the thing that they weren't able to do that made them go with the other approach to begin with"? They are learning energy balance through the calorie deficit needed for weight loss, learning portion sizes, learning to eat within macros....what is missing that is needed for success in maintenance?
I think he means those who chose low carb for the specific reason of being unable to moderate high carb foods. Once they reach maintenance, to keep the weight off they would either need to stay away from these foods or severely limit them for life (continue following a low carb macro goal like the title states) or find a way learn that same exact skill that they were unable to learn during dieting, i.e. the ability to eat high carb foods in reasonable portions, if they wish to transition to a more forgiving macro distribution that allows for choices closer to the way they have always eaten.
I don't see how that is different from any other way of eating. Weight gain is from a calorie surplus, i.e. over-eating and not moderating intake of food. Everyone who reaches maintenance is going to need to decide whether or not to eat a food, severely limit that food, or learn to control their intake of that food in order to be successful. If it's a food they overate in the past, they're going to have to pick one of those options, no matter what the macro make-up of the food.
I also don't agree that people necessarily go back to the "way they have always eaten" after weight loss. Obviously, they will not be able to eat as much food, but I think a lot of people end up changing their diets in a lot of ways, whether it is cooking from home more, including more whole foods, etc. Our diets change throughout our lives with our age and circumstances, and some people decide that some foods aren't as integral in their lives now as they might have been at a different point in their lives.
Some people do want to go back to the way they have always eaten in terms of types of food, not in terms of calories. It can be achieved either by reducing portions or frequency. Those who decide to change some or much of their familiar diet for life by severely reducing or eliminating are by no means better or worse than those who prefer to keep to the familiar if both are equally aware of what it takes to maintain and what strategies work for them.
Some people decide they want to eliminate or severely limit some foods for life, and that's great if that's what they wish to do and feel is sustainable. This is not the issue here. This is not a discussion about whether or not people choose to eliminate foods or change the types of foods they eat. Of course any sustainable strategy will be beneficial during maintenance. What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods, which people on very low carb diets usually need to do.
Come maintenance, they will not magically learn how to navigate situations involving these foods just because they are at their goal weight. The exact issue that led them to low carb would rear its ugly head again. The disadvantage for these people is that if they wish to maintain they are hit with a big learning curve during a critical phase of maintenance, something people who eat a more flexible diet during weight loss have already tackled and developed working strategies for, making for a smoother and easier transition to maintenance.
I'm not clear on this sentence, particularly the bold: "What we are talking about is someone unable to moderate certain foods, chooses low carb to manage that issue, but doesn't feel it would be sustainable for life to cut off, severely limit or manipulate a big chunk of familiar, comforting, social, ritualistic...etc foods"
Cutting off, severely limiting, or manipulating foods to fit into a diet is pretty much the essential skills needed to be successful at maintenance - you either don't consume it, only have it occasionally, or make it fit by manipulating portion or recipe. I don't see how that isn't sustainable, especially since moderating foods that way is how many flexible dieters are able to be successful.
I'm not sure where the stream of communication is being bottlenecked, A big chunk is the keyword. Not wanting to eat a diet that is almost entirely different from what a person is used to forver is a valid concern for some. Deciding to severely limit doughnuts because I don't like them enough to be worth the calories or cutting out regular soda because I find diet soda to taste same or even better is different from someone having to severely limit more than half of their usual foods that they actually love and a good chunk of the foods commonly consumed socially. Using a little less oil in cooking or more vegetables for bulking is entirely different from someone using manipulations that make certain dishes barely recognizable as the original. Limiting my food choices for one meal in order to have a higher calorie meal of a food I love is different from limiting a hoard of choices for an extended time. My diet is nearly identical to the usual way I eat, albeit tweaked a bit, their diet is almost entirely different from the usual way they eat.
Feeling a drastic change in diet not to be sustainable is a valid concern for some, I'm not sure what you don't understand about that or why you are trying to take the thread places. The question is simple: why do people say you must eat that way forever? The question is very specific to those who do not want to eat low carb forever and thus do not want to limit their food the same way. The answer is simple too: it's not that you must, it's that it would make for an easier transition into maintenance because you will already have developed some of the needed skills. This applies to any diet, not just low carb and if you plan to maintain on a diet that is very different from the one you used to lose weight you will need to be ready for a good deal of new strategy developing, and yes, even things you may have avoided like the plague during dieting like calorie counting or portion control.
First, I do not agree that the question is specific to those who do not want to eat low carb forever and thus do not want to limit their food the same way. That question is asked, as well as the "why are you choosing to eat low carb," of most users who come to site asking for information about low carb diets.
That's the question posed by OP.
It's a different issue entirely to the claim that drastic changes are a bad idea or that baby steps are a better approach.
I don't think any of these things are always true (although I tend to think a drastic change that one intends to continue is probably more sensible for most, not all, people who want a drastic change as part of a diet plan, with the understanding, of course, that it's entirely possible to change approach over time). However, by arguing that people might have a good reason for doing low carb or the like or that they are going to keep the same strategy afterwards (not adding back in the "trigger foods" which are claimed to be carbs is the opposite of saying you don't plan to do it once you hit goal) you are kind of not addressing the specific question asked and just seem to be jumping through hoops to argue "low carber good," "person who is at all critical of anything about low carb, bad."I'm not sure why someone who really wanted a food to be a part of their life would choose a diet which eliminates that in the first place, it seems like the majority of people on site who do eliminate foods eliminate ones they do not feel are helpful to their goals.
Often because (1) they believe, due to popular diet lore, that eating the food prevents weight loss (see, e.g., endless questions about whether bananas, among many other foods, prevent weight loss); or (2) they don't want to count calories/track or have been frustrated by half-hearted attempts to do so and have heard that low carbing doesn't require that (which sometimes it doesn't, but that person typically is not preparing for going off it -- yes, not a problem if they like low carb and choose to do it forever, but often they don't want to do that at all, but are more like the people who say "I can do 1000 calories or less if it works fast." Related to (2), they may have heard that low carbing works better or faster.
I think low carbing can be a good strategy (and there's no hard from trying it), but typically someone for whom it is a good strategy will have a reason better than "I heard it works without you having to limit what you eat" or "I heard you can lose super fast" or "I heard carbs make you fat -- oh, can someone tell me what foods are carbs?". That person also should have learned how to do it (e.g., that you typically increase fat, not protein, and being high fat is totally fine), that you don't cut calories absurdly low, that ideally you should get some vegetables for nutrition, so on. YES, I totally agree the same point can be made more broadly about dieting.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions